Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enrollment Projections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
RSP projections: Plainfield SD 202 likely to see elementary and middle growth, high‑school decline; administrators to begin boundary analysis
Summary
An RSP demographic forecast presented March 19 found Plainfield SD 202 likely to see elementary and middle‑school enrollment increases over the next five years while high‑school enrollment declines as large senior cohorts graduate; the district will begin boundary analysis this spring to address building‑level capacity pressures.
Rob Schwartz, CEO of RSP and Associates, presented updated enrollment projections to the Board’s site and finance committee March 19, saying the analysis shows modest growth at the elementary and middle levels over the next five years, with a projected decline in high‑school enrollment driven by larger outgoing senior cohorts.
Key findings Schwartz discussed: the district’s incoming kindergarten cohorts are smaller than recent senior classes, but positive net migration and new housing development within district boundaries are expected to generate elementary and middle‑school growth; projected increases concentrated in northern and western attendance areas. RSP’s model incorporated live‑birth data, building permits/certificates of occupancy, housing type (single‑family vs. multifamily) and recent development activity.
Capacity: Schwartz walked the committee through a functional capacity analysis that factors core instructional space, elective and special‑program rooms. He presented district level functional capacities the committee transcript recorded as approximately 12,217 seats at the elementary band, 5,679 at middle school and roughly 8,869 at the high‑school band. The middle‑school band was forecasted to exceed functional capacity in the planning horizon; several individual buildings were flagged as at‑risk for over‑utilization in the next five years, including Lakewood Falls, Lincoln Elementary, Meadowview and several middle‑school sites named in the report. Schwartz cautioned that exceeding functional capacity can force program trade‑offs, such as repurposing resource rooms or specialist spaces.
Development and yields: RSP reviewed recent and projected housing — thousands of single‑family and multifamily units across the district’s 64 square miles — and showed that student yield per 100 units has declined over time (for both single‑family and multifamily), so new development does not automatically translate into the same number of students it did in earlier decades. The firm estimated about 7,200 potential residential units over the next 10 years and recommended close monitoring of northern and western growth areas.
Next steps and timeline: The district plans a formal boundary analysis in spring and summer; Schwartz listed a multi‑step timeline that includes board guidance on boundary criteria, internal stakeholder work, draft options, public input meetings (anticipated July/August) and a board adoption window in late September (the district noted the date may slide to October). Administrators said they will use the demographic and development data to craft boundary options intended to last several years, and they emphasized that rapid development or changes to local infrastructure may alter timelines.
Why it matters: The projections and boundary work will shape where students attend beginning in future school years and drive decisions about facilities, staffing and capital planning.
Ending: Board members asked clarifying questions about capacity thresholds and the expected timing of enrollment shifts; Schwartz recommended monitoring certificate‑of‑occupancy activity and completing boundary scenarios for community review this summer.
